Talk:Winston Churchill
The photo of Winston and his mother is of Winston and his wife. TR 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, how awful! Say "the alleged photo of W and his mother . . . " or people will get ideas. ;) Turtle Fan 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I've been digging into historical figures' personal lives in an attempt to grow the adulterers category. Google is quite insistent that Winston Churchill had an affair some Middle Eastern society woman named Soraya Khashgobbi. I wasn't able to get an age on Ms Khashgobbi but she was much, much too young for what she's accused of. Turns out her lover was Churchill's grandson by the same name. Turtle Fan 20:58, June 18, 2010 (UTC) Father of the House Unfortunately, he's the only Father of the House we have. I'm very surprised, considering we have all those Victorian Prime Mnisters who kept coming back and back over the course of decades. Lloyd George was also Father, but we deleted him. Coming back to bite us. Turtle Fan 07:57, June 29, 2010 (UTC) Minister of War in TWTPE In playing around a bit, I have discovered that there has never been an office in the UK called "Minister of War". Churchill himself created "Minister of Defense" (which ceased to exist in the 1960s), and there has been a "Secretary of State for War" (often just called "War Secretary"). So I think that this may be an inconsistency, although since it came after the POD, it's an easily ret-connable one (Chamberlain created the position as MoW just as Churchill created MoD in OTL), but I'm not conversant enough with UK politics to say that with absolute certainty (maybe Minister of War is short-hand for some other position). TR 15:31, July 30, 2010 (UTC) :Recent PMs have changed titles of Cabinet officials pretty often. They keep expanding and contracting their people's portfolios in some sort of political wrangling, so renaming or changing positions is not hard to imagine. Of course, it's not our job to retcon, as I've often said when there are comments from the peanut gallery on the Inconsistencies Talk page. So if Minister of War is not a shorthand (Since they've already got War Secretary, I really don't see the need), we'll call it an Incon. It's not as bad as Josef Lemp, at least. Turtle Fan 19:19, July 30, 2010 (UTC) Big Three Picture I moved the Big Three picture from the bottom of the Worldwar section to the top, but it remains pegged to the beginning of the TL-191 section. There couldn't be a worse place for it. Actually there really isn't any great place for it at all: In MwIH Churchill is Leader of the Opposition, Roosevelt is pushing up a daisy, and Stalin is barely on speaking terms with either of their successors. In Worldwar the Big Three became the Big Five, then eventually became another kind of Big Three that did not include Britain, which had sunk to a very distant fifth place by HB. In NFtF this combination of leaders was on the same side, but not for long. In ItPoME the US sat the war out altogether. In TWTPE Churchill has yet to lead Britain and apparently never will, and the US isn't doing anything more for the Allies than rooting for them from the sidelines. In Steele the combination's a little different, and in TL-191 it doesn't work at all. If we can't straighten it out we might as well remove the picture altogether, from this article anyway (though it's a bit of a sentimental favorite, as a relative of mine was present when it was taken). But I'm more concerned that the picture is so glibly disobeying us when we reposition it. Can't say I've ever had that happen before, not when the code was correct; and I've done enough pictures on here over the years to know that it is. Turtle Fan 18:36, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Okay, now it's between the TWTPE and ItPoMe sections. The hell? Turtle Fan 18:41, June 29, 2011 (UTC) :I think it might be the new story character boxes that are causing strange formatting effects. If you go to the bottom of the list, you will see seven (7) "Edit" hotlinks. Those are the ones for each sub-section. Previously, they were aligned with their corresponding sub-section but the new boxes forced them to the bottom. I think the same thing maybe happening with embedded pictures, etc. ML4E 19:22, June 30, 2011 (UTC) :::Ah, yes, I saw that, too. And I suspect the boxes are involved: I noticed that the picture appeared to b floating up the article, from TL-191 to ItPoMe to TWTPE. Then I noticed that it was holding constant in its alignment with the lower edge of the last box, and its relative position was changing as text added to sections higher up knocked the rest of the article downward and changed what text happened to appear on the line parallel to the lowermost boundary of the box. Turtle Fan 21:59, June 30, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm not seeing these issues at all....TR 19:38, June 30, 2011 (UTC) :::Consider yourself fortunate. We'll have to figure out a fix, though. Turtle Fan 21:59, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Literary Comment For Sothern Victory Is this really necessary? It seems to me that Jonathan is beginning to use these for personal editorial comments rather than a comment on literary aspects of Turtledove's work. ML4E (talk) 20:22, July 23, 2015 (UTC) :I'm 50/50. It is true that Churchill dabbled in AH, and at a wiki largely dedicated to AH, it seems appropriate to point it out. Maybe a "trivia" section, and delete the "it's appropriate that Churchill appears in CS winning the ACW" language. TR (talk) 21:07, July 23, 2015 (UTC) :If we're going to acknowledge the Churchill story--and I do think it would be somewhat appropriate to do so, it's something of interest to readers of HT's favorite genre--I think the place to do it is in the OTL intro. Just tack a sentence onto the end. ::That might work out although making a "Trivia" sub-section would make it stand out more. ML4E (talk) 21:54, July 24, 2015 (UTC) :::Ah, but by whose definition is the story trivial? It's probably trivial to a basic, straight-up assessment of the man's contributions to history. But since we've decided the fact is likely to be of not-insignificant interest to AH buffs, doesn't that lend it greater weight? :::Furthermore, such a section should have several entries, and we've only got the one. And I can't possibly see any value in digging up uninteresting tidbits about him nust to pad out the section. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC) :Also, he's inaccurate: Churchill has an extensive offscreen presence in 191, but doesn't actually appear in the story. ::Judging by the Worldwar sub-section, Churchill has a bigger, onscreen presence there. He also makes several appearances in the Joe Steele novel which are not reflected yet in that sub-section. (What we have is for the short story.) This adds weight to taking it out as a Lit Com in Souther Victory. ML4E (talk) 21:54, July 24, 2015 (UTC) :::He wasn't huge in Worldwar, but he did make several appearances. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC) :More generally, I agree that Jonathan is abusing the literary comments. I've counseled trying to find a way to correct him gently, but he's doing too much damage too quickly. It also doesn't help that these editorial comments seem to be the only "improvements" he has any interest in making. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:40, July 24, 2015 (UTC) ::He isn't that bad but a lot of it is minor editing and link adding to existing articles. Some of his Lit Comments have merit but some of the more recent ones are more personal opinion than objective comments. The main problem is someone has to keep on top of all the minor edits to make sure of what he is doing. ML4E (talk) 21:54, July 24, 2015 (UTC) :::Yeah, and it's getting old. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC) Good work TR. Expanding the OTL biography helps put the ATL histories in perspective and the last part on Churchill's own AH flows out naturally. ML4E (talk) 16:15, July 25, 2015 (UTC) If Hitler invaded Hell ... "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." is apparently a comment Churchill made to his personal secretary John Colville just after the start of Operation Barbarossa. He was referring to Stalin, of course. I am thinking of this as a new Literary Allusions sub-section under Churchill's name rather than a literary comment here. What do you think? ML4E (talk) 17:30, August 24, 2015 (UTC) :I agree. TR (talk) 17:35, August 24, 2015 (UTC) TL 191 direct appearance? I thought Churchill made a "direct appearance" as a voice on the radio towards the end of The Victorious Opposition but maybe my memory plays tricks on me.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 23:40, November 4, 2015 (UTC) :I don't recall this, but you may be right. Even if he did, though, I don't believe a radio address would qualify as a direct appearance; I'd want to see him walk out onto the stage (so to speak). Turtle Fan (talk) 03:13, November 5, 2015 (UTC) ::There seems to be a common phenomenon on this Wiki where someone's appearance is listed as "Direct (via radio)", eg Dutch in TVO.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:42, November 5, 2015 (UTC) :::Oh. Well I guess we could do that. Or else consider more precise appearance type categories. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:10, November 5, 2015 (UTC) ::::Actually, he doesn't. It's an anonymous announcer reading something Churchill wrote.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 07:49, December 16, 2019 (UTC) Inconsistencies The new Hot War subsection refers to Inconsistencies in Turtledove's Work#Inconsistencies in The Hot War. I don't see anything that fits. If it is new for Armistice then please add it. Otherwise, I will delete the footnote. ML4E (talk) 19:05, August 3, 2017 (UTC) :Fixed.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:37, August 3, 2017 (UTC) See Also The third entry for Charles W. La Follette in the new "See Also" sub-section doesn't seem relevant to me. After all, we don't have one for FDR and I don't think one for any other U.S. President is necessary. I suppose the Featherston = Hitler parallel gives a hint at the parallel to La Follette = Churchill but that seems too tenuous to be justified. ML4E (talk) 18:22, March 6, 2018 (UTC) :That's based on the "see also" I added to La Follette years ago. I'm not wedded to keeping it; La Follette winds up being a poor man's substitute for a lot of people from OTL, but in my opinion, he's probably most like Churchill in terms of career path. He abruptly came into power after the peace deal his predecessor brokered failed, and, despite steering his country to victory, he was voted out office. Of course, he was not depicted as anything like the strong brilliant personality and fiery orator Churchill was. Nor was he the comforting, self-assured almost paternal figure FDR was. :But as I said, it's a very broad comparison. We can dump both, or keep both, or dump one and keep the other, or whatever. TR (talk) 18:59, March 6, 2018 (UTC) Final fate in ItPoME I recently examined ItPoME, and couldn't find a reference to a 1940s death. Is this left over from the same speculator who had MLK fighting the Nazis?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 04:16, March 3, 2019 (UTC) :What a ridiculous question. It's very obvious that that nonsense was whole orders of magnitude beyond this very reasonable suggestion on the implausibility scale. Turtle Fan (talk) 09:22, March 3, 2019 (UTC) ::Now that I look closer, we have Churchill listed as executed by the Nazis. How do we know he wasn't killed in a bombing raid?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:59, March 19, 2019 (UTC)